We've all been talking about "The Semantic Web" for a very long time. I would love to be proven wrong but it all reminds me of EDI[1] which for more then 30 years has tried to develop standards around data formats. I think all of these efforts so far have been doomed to die a horrible death because they don't have an obvious benefit for those involved in the massive investment required to get it right. I think theoretically it's wonderful to imagine a world of infinitely parseable machine consumable information. If anything the robots will appreciate it when they take over the world. Meanwhile I'm not convinced that Humans can attach enough value to the effort to make it worthwhile. But I could be wrong, this wouldn't be the first time and I hope not the last time. :-)<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_data_interchange" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_data_interchange</a>
For anyone interested in the alternative, check out RDFa[0]. They seem to be functionally equivalent and are supported by all major search providers. [1] (if down, see web archive version [2])<p>[0]: <a href="http://rdfa.info/" rel="nofollow">http://rdfa.info/</a><p>[1]: <a href="http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/" rel="nofollow">http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny.org/2012/mythical-differences/" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20140719161748/http://manu.sporny...</a>
To be clear, is this stating the format as outlined on Schema (<a href="http://schema.org/" rel="nofollow">http://schema.org/</a>) is dead?
"Google suggests using microdata"
<a href="https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en&ref_topic=4600154" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en&ref...</a><p>I have no horse in this race, but isn't Google the search engine kinda the deciding factor here?